The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet and stay of proceedings. The Court held that mere disputes or delay in filing did not establish a false complaint, noting that the credibility of witnesses must be adjudicated during the trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3903 OF 2022
Between:
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
...COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT No.1
... DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT No.2
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the charge sheet in CC no.64 of 2022 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Husnabad.
l.A. NO: 1OF 2022
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all furtherproceedings including arrest and appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.64 of 2022 on the file of Addl. Judicial lst Class Magistrate at Husnabad.
I I I I I I I I
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri NARAYANA N, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri RAVI KUMAR VADLAKONDA, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
The Court made the following: OROER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.39O3 OF 2022
ORDER;
i. The petitioners a-re questioning their implication in the charge sheet as accused for the offence under Sections 448, 29O, 323, 324,506 r/w 34 of IPC in CC No.64 ol2022 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Husnabad, Karimnagar District.
2
the delay caused in lodging the complaint. Though the alleged incident took place on 06.12.202 1, complaint was frled on 16.12.2021 .ln fact, tl-rc father of 2"a and 3ra petitioners and the defacto complainanl had filed complaint orr IO.O7.2O2| and also oo 14.O7.2O2 1 that several persons had trespassed into the prernises and also obtained injunction from the Court. As a counter blast, false complaint was made by the 2"d respondent against thesr: petitioners. He further submits that in view of the Honble Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1L992 Supplement (1) SCC 3351 if a criminal proceeding 1S maliciously instituted for wrecking vengeancc witl'r ir view to spite person due to private and personal grudge, such proceedings should be quashed.
3
Misceilaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/. MOHD. SANAULLAHANS RI ASSISTANTREGS R //TRUE COPY// SECTIONOFICER
To,
VH q
HIGH COURT
KS, J
DATED: 1411212022
'i,, l' t-t
Nll
3
1B l[ll
L<br>a
ORDER
CRLP.No.3903 ot 2022
Dismissing the Crl.P.
(g*t') #tr
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as a false complaint motivated by grudge and civil dispute.
Whether the prosecution witnesses and corroborative evidence are sufficient to sustain the charge at this stage.
Whether a delay in filing the complaint vitiliates the entire criminal proceeding.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶33
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supplement (1) SCC 3351) · Who else cites this
Siddimalla Saritha and others
State of Telangana
Siddimalla Ramesh
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
